tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN September 27, 2016 4:00pm-7:01pm EDT
i thank all the panelists for being here. especially the gao for working on this. i yield back my time. >> gentleman yields back. i just want to make a -- we have members who will have questions afterwards, too. i also want to make sure we have unanimous consent to put two letters of the fda into the record. without any objection, we'll have that. mr. collins brought this up briefly. do you have protocol for the nonselect agents then? when you deactivate those? whether it's tuberculosis, zika, things like that, do you have protocols for deactivation? does cdc have protocols then? >> yes, the review board that i mentioned reviews all protocols for any bsl 3 or 4 agent regardless of whether or not it's a select agent, including tuberculosis. >> the nonselect agents -- >> including tuberculosis and others. >> in dod, you have protocols now for nonselect agents, and
also for some of the other diseases? >> we do. and we've also got a government panel reviewing all the protocols to make sure that they're consistent and make sense based on scientific evidence. >> thank you. i just want to say that in conclusion, i want to thank all our panelists for being here today. and recognize members have, if they have other questions, they'll submit them. and we ask that you all respond to them fairly quickly. we thank the panel. we thank you for the progress here. we hope you don't have to come back again. we don't want to hear about any other instances. please convey to all of your employees the seriousness of the issues out there. and with that, this hearing is adjourned.
we're back on capitol hill tomorrow when federal reserve chair janet yellen testifies before the house financial services committee about monetary policy, and regulation of the financial sector. this comes a week after the fed announced that interest rates are remaining unchanged until later this year. watch her testimony live at 10:00 a.m. eastern tomorrow here on c-span3. the next president making appointments to the supreme court of the united states will
be president donald trump. >> with hillary clinton in the white house, the rest of the world will never forget why they've always looked up to the united states of america. >> c-span's campaign 2016 continues on the road to the white house with the vice presidential debate between republican governor mike pence and democratic senator tim kaine. tuesday, october 4th, live, from longwood university in farmville, virginia, beginning at 7:30 p.m. eastern with a preview of the debate. then at 8:30, the predebate briefing for the audience. at 9:00 p.m., live coverage of the debate followed by viewer reaction. the 2016 vice presidential debate. watch live on c-span, watch live and anytime on demand at c-span.org. listen live on the free c-span radio app. next, a discussion on the impact of immigration on the economy, the work force, and
local communities. participants look at a new report by the national academies of sciences, concluding that the long-term impacts of immigration on the wages and employment of native-born workers is minimal. but that there are some negative effects on low-skilled workers. hosted by the urban institute, this is two and a half hours. >> good morning, everyone. i am honored to be the president of the urban institute, and to welcome you here today for this really extraordinary program. on behalf not only of my colleagues here at urban, but also our partners at the south rice school of public policy is the the university of southern california. for a discussion of an important new analysis by the national
academy of sciences on immigration's economic and fiscal impacts on our larger economy and on america's communities. our goal today is to better understand also the potential role of immigrants when effectively integrated into our economy in the future prosperity of our country as a whole, and as the day evolves, focus more on our cities and communities. i invite all of you who are in the room and those of you online, welcome also, to join the conversation, taking advantage of the #live at urban. and those of you online live, i know there are many who will be watching in broadcast later, but those watching live, including our c-span audience, send comments to us at events at
urb urban.org. we're excited about this being in the beginning of a deeper collaboration on these issues between the urban institute and the sol price school under the leadership of gary painter, director of policy for center for social innovation and audrey singer. more about that in a minute. but first, let me just briefly mention the occasion that draws us here. yesterday the national academy of sciences, engineering and medicine released a report entitled the consequences of immigration, which is a comprehensive examination of these issues, and the ways in which immigrants have driven change in our society since 1997. the academy's convened 15 experts on a world class academic nonpartisan panel led by professor francine blou, professor of economics at cornell university. some of the facts you find in
digging through that report. over 40 million people in the united states today were born in other countries. and an equal number have at least one immigrant parent. together, those immigrants and near relations of immigrants make up a quarter of americans. a growing share of our working population are immigrants, and almost nearly all of the growth in our future work force is expected to come from immigrants and their families. the panel in the report discussed the nature of changes in our population in the last 20 years. the number of foreign born have doubled since 1990, and are now 13% of our population. and that includes naturalized citizens, temporary visas, green cards, refugees and the undocumented. the number of undocumented, 11 million, has been constant since 2009, with about 300,000,
400,000 immigrants joining our country illegally and a similar number leaving each year. there are 1 million legal permanent residents also arriving each year. so what's the impact. the national academy's press release read, immigration's long-term impacts on overall wages and unemployment of the native born u.s. workers are very small. although low-skilled workers may be affected, a new report finds, impacts on economic growth are positive while effects on government budgets are mixed. that's a nuanced headline, and unfortunately nuance doesn't always at first blush convey very well in public debate. this morning i looked at the news cycle comments on the report. "the new york times" headline said, immigrants aren't taking american jobs, a new study finds, and the "washington times" headline read immigrants drain the economy, sapping $296 billion a year from state and local and federal taxes.
and they did add at least in the short run. so people are looking for what they want to find. unfortunately, from my perspective, the press focused far too little on one of the report's key conclusions in which the wage immigration is the economic growth. we like to say we elevate the debate. today's discussion is intended to elevate and mine this incredibly rich sophisticated and really terrific body of work. we are very excited also that one of the panel members was one of our own, kim, senior fellow and project director of state and local finance here is one of the panel. and dowel meyers, who is not with us today. oh, i'm sorry. pardon me. i had the wrong list in front of me when i was writing my notes. my apology.
so the first panel is going to introduce the report, and we're delighted also to have from usc roberto serro to moderate. roberto is teaching at the school of communications and journalism and the price school of public policy. he directs the thomas rivera policy institute. he has been a journalist, and then as a founding director of the pew hispanic center. after that, we'll have a second panel moderating by urban's audrey singer. and she will introduce then leaders from three regions discussing the diverse roles of immigrants. and in particular, we're very excited that our partnership with usc is going to focus on this regional and local impact. we're going to try to better understand the role of immigration in communities, and also the ways in which the positive benefits for local economies and for communities that come from immigration can
be reinforced, and the barriers to that successful integration that we may have can be removed. audrey is a fellow in our metro center and she's done integration for the last 25 years. and she was also recently a member of another national academies panel on immigrant integration released just about a year ago. roberto and audrey are going to introduce the rest of our speakers. i also encourage you all online and in the room to stick around because at the end we're going to hear from president obama's chief immigration adviser, the director of the domestic policy, counsel cecilia munoz who will close out our day. so with that, thank you. >> hi. thank you, sarah. and thank you all for coming. we are very excited with the release of the report which is three years in the making. so it's taken a fair amount of
energy on our parts, and the rest of the members of the commission. and we are very excited to share the results with you today. it was my privilege to serve with my fellow members, and examine this important topic. before we begin our discussion, and most of this will be a discussion, where we answer questions and we're not going to go page by page, or theory by theory through all 500 pages. i just wanted to take a couple of minutes to stress some of the findings, and at least highlight and give you a little bit of a road map through the report. so, first a little housekeeping. the project was sponsored by the john dean/catherine t. martin foundation, to examine and specify what we know about the economic and fiscal consequences of immigration. little do they know three years ago when they basically decided that it was worth investing in this, where we were going to be in the presidential election cycle right now.
we also received support from the national academy's presidents to finish this work. it actually took more time and money than they originally anticipated. and it's a follow-up to a study that was done in the 1990s. they recognized that both the country as a whole and the role of immigrants have changed in the intervening time. the other thing to stress is that independent of the role of immigrants, we went from a rare point in history in the 1990s when we were running fiscal surpluses, so the country at the end of the last century, we were actually raising more in taxes than we were spending at the federal level. now we're back to where we sort of were historically, but at a larger level after the great recession, where we're running deficits. this is important because when we start talking about the fiscal effects, and some of those things like that headline in the "washington times," have to do with the fact that immigrants cost more than they're paying in federal taxes. but so does everybody else.
so basically the key thing to note and remember as we're talking about especially what's going on at the fiscal level, the fact that we're running deficits in this country means that if you do an accounting exercise, and you're looking at taxes paid versus money spent, we're in the hole. and that has nothing to do with immigrants or any individual person. it just has to do with federally what we're doing right now. and so that's just sort of important to know, and to remember, especially some of these headlines come out, that it's kind of misleading. while immigrants cost money, so do natives. if you look at the similar headline to the one in the "washington times," it would cost $197 billion in 2013. so it's just something to sort of keep in mind as we move forward. so as noted by sarah, we examined demographic changes in the country in immigrant population, evaluated research on the economic impacts of immigrants, examining numerous
studies and hearing from experts. so we did a pretty exhaustive search of both studies and research reports that were both pro and against what role immigrants are playing in this country. and we have a pretty diverse committee. we actually had consensus on sort of what we think the takeaways were. we differentiated in our report, and this is different from some of the other work we've done, between first generation or immigrant populations, second generation or the children of immigrants. so this is sort of people who are native to this country, but have at least one foreign-born parent. and other native residents. if we end up talking about, and i'm probably the one most likely to fall into this nomenclature, of third generation or third or more generation, that basically means anybody whose parents were not immigrants themselves, or immigrants. so it could be people whose
grandparents were immigrants, great grandparents were immigrants, or it could be people whose ancestors came over on the mayflower. so some of the other highlights. one of the things that sarah mentioned that i think is worth stressing is, i think we lose sight of the fact that while the number of undocumented immigrants increased from the 1990s through the beginning of this century, beginning in 2007, and through now, the number of unauthorized immigrants has actually been constant. we've had people come in, and we've had people leave. but there's been sort of a net wash. that's sort of important to remember as we're going forward. so immigrants are also making up an increasing share of our population. they're also making up a larger share of our labor force. partly what we see are immigrants, they're younger than they were historically.
they're also younger than what's been going on sort of with the population in the united states. right? so in the country, natives are actually aging. and more and more are leaving the work force and the labor force. so part of what is sustaining us is the fact that we have immigrants coming in of working age, who are working. and so the shares of the population in our labor force that is now made up of immigrants has gone to 16%. from 2020 to 2030, the only increase in our labor force population is going to come from immigrants or the children of immigrants. so native-born and third generation folks are actually leaving the labor force population more than they are entering it due to sort of birth rate replacement. so it's important just to recognize that in order to sustain our labor force, we kind of need a certain level of immigration moving forward. so some other general findings.
immigrants have also more recently entered the country with more education than they have historically. native-born individuals have also gotten more education. right now, immigrants are typically overrepresented in two groups. those without a high school degree, so even though they have more education, they still -- there's still a substantial percent that don't have a high school degree. and those with more than a college degree. so right now we have a disproportionate number of immigrants and those with higher levels of education, especially in the stem field, so science and technology. we find that there's little effect overall on the economy, on the role of immigrants in terms of wages and employment. we find that there are negative effects. it's sort of concentrated in other people who are most closely the substitutes for
newly arrived immigrants. so if there's any effect, and the reports sort of span a large role in terms of showing these effects, it's mainly concentrated in effects on the employment or wages of prior immigrants, or other people without a high school degree. we also spent some time and we'll talk about this more soon, on the role of high-skilled immigrants. we actually find that they contribute positively to the economy, and they actually are complementary with both labor that has a college degree and that without a college degree. we'll get into that more later. we actually find that they actually increase economic growth in this country. and add to our productivity. if we switch to the fiscal side of things, we actually see a more mixed picture. so, again, as i recounted before, we're running deficits. so if you just sort of look at sort of the overall fiscal
picture, everything looks pretty bleak, in that we're spending more money than we're actually raising in taxes. and while immigrants, if we allocate costs on an average basis, actually consume more than they pay in taxes, a lot of this has to do with how we allocate education costs. so what we do in this study, and one of the issues that we had to decide on how do you handle children? so if you were going to educate kids, do we actually say that kids should bear the burden of their own costs of what we spend on that? like the cost of education? or do we say that those are attributable to the parents? what we do in the report is we actually say that the cost of kids sit with their parents. for immigrant parents, we assign any costs as sort of children who are under 18 or under 21, so dependents to those parents, even if those kids are native.
and so in general, when we actually find that there are negative effects of immigrants, that's largely coming from the fact that they are younger, have more kids typically, and so at the state and local level, we're spending more on them because we're paying for those education costs. you could, instead of thinking of education as a cost, you can think of it as an investment, in which case we should all bear some of that burden. and in fact, in part of what we do, because we're looking at the adult first, second and third-plus generations, we actually find that the group that contributes the most to the country, both at the federal level and at the state and local level, is actually that second generation. so in part, what we're finding is that the investment we're making in kids is paying off later. now, most of those returns are felt by the federal government rather than state and local governments, in part because state and local governments actually pay for education while
the federal government does, yet the federal government receiving a fair amount of that return because of the income taxes which is our main way of paying into the federal government. what's new in the report, too, is we actually do estimates across the 50 states. and actually find tremendous variation in sort of what the fiscal benefits and costs are for first, second and third-plus generations across each of the 50 states. i've skipped a bunch of things. we have a lot more going on in the report. i'd say, reading the executive summary and the brief is great. or, you know, if you're bored this weekend, you can get your own copy. with that, i'm going to hand it over to roberto to start. thank you. >> thank you. let me start by introducing the other panelists whose biographies you have in detail. immediately to my left, jenny hunt from rutgers. and del meyers, my colleague from usc, who is a demographer
on policy and laws. if you're interested in this topic, immigration really, or if you're interested in either the economic or fiscal future of the country that door stop will be with you for much more than a weekend. this is -- this report is in some ways a companion volume to the report that kim mentioned that was done in 1997, the new americans report. for people who have been in this field, that really provided a kind of a benchmark, a really important marker in our understanding of the fiscal and economic effects of immigration that has been a consistent influence in the way we think about these issues for 20 years. i think this volume has the same
potential in terms of its longevity and influence. it's an extraordinarily complex undertaking that pursues a lot of very detailed subjects, as well as presenting the broad strokes that kim has presented, and other broad strokes. that was only a part of the overview that you got. so in the time that we have, we will barely scratch the surface of what this document offers in terms of both insights and questions. and ways of formulating questions. it gives us necessary vocabulary to start assessing these important questions, and takes us from one period of time, the 1990s, into a very different period of time where the dynamics have changed
considerably. i want to start with one particular subject. and it's one that relates to what i believe one of the most significant changes in the nature of the immigration flows itself. and particularly in the last few years, which is the increasing numbers of high-skilled immigrants and their impact on the economy. something that really wasn't that much of an issue in 1997. and now since the recession, increasingly is an issue, and one that, as our economy is driven by information technologies, and other forms of economic activity that rely on brains and human capital in particular, the flow of human capital into the country and the role immigration policies play in providing that economic
input, is something that this report opens doors on in a way that we haven't seen before. i know this is a subject of interest to you, jenny. one of the -- what aspect of this -- one of the aspects of this report i find inkreeging, is the multidimensional approach to the economic impact of highly-skilled, or well-educated or entrepreneurial immigrants. and you don't just measure incomes in jobs. it's a much more complicated picture. i'm wondering if you could just give us an introduction to the kind of framework that you present regarding that part of the immigration flow. >> yeah, absolutely. i do want to start by saying some people do have the idea, well, we know that skilled immigrants contribute to the economy, unskilled don't really. i hope to be able to emphasize later that actually all immigrants do contribute to the economy. so i'm going to talk about some ways in which the skilled immigrants contribute.
but that's not implying that they are the only ones who do contribute. >> of course. >> there are two ways in which we think particularly skilled immigrants might contribute that doesn't apply to less skilled immigrants. and one is that they might innovate. it doesn't even necessarily have to be innovate more than natives. because if you come up with a new idea, actually the whole population can benefit from it, rather than -- at least eventually after the pattern has expired and so forth. everyone can benefit. we think that actually affects economic growth and not just the level of well-being -- economic well-being in the economy. that's one thing. of course, it's not only skilled immigrants that innovate, but we think they innovate more than less-skilled immigrants, or people, workers in general. that's one thing. and then the second thing is that we think that skilled workers, which would include skilled immigrants, might
actually have what we call positive spillovers on their co-workers. so actually, it's easy for a professor to think of that in the professorial context, we professors try to seek out jobs in departments where there's other very good colleagues, because we know we'll interact with them, and they will make us more productive. similarly, in general, if you have some skilled immigrant coming into the u.s., they may actually raise the productivity of not -- now i'm not talking about the entire economy, but a group around them. and nowadays, around you means essentially farther away. also electronically, but face-to-face is still important. so those are two ways. but also, in the way the skilled immigrants contribute that we think unskilled don't. some do actually apply to immigrants more generally.
for example, we think that skilled or even other immigrants coming in affect how natives decide to specialize. so this can actually be looked at in two ways. but the first economic way of thinking about it is that people increase their specialization in what they're good at. so even at the high skilled level, there's evidence that when immigrants come, that the natives go into specialties that use language, and communications more intensively, because in general they speak english better than the immigrants. and that increases the efficiency and productivity of the economy. so that's one -- i'm not sure if you have another -- >> yes. >> so, i was just going to ask, and i think that's great, the other thing that is true of immigrants more so than natives has to do with entrepreneurship. this could be people who are
high skilled or have more education. but it could also be other immigrants who are coming. so they're more likely to start and open small businesses, some of which grow into larger businesses. but also provide jobs for others, which i think is also an important role. and then jenny, we'll probably get back to this later, because immigrants are also more mobile, or more willing to move within the country, it means that they are more likely to go to places where there are jobs, or there are openings. so at all skill levels. which i think it's beyond just sort of high skilled laborers, but helps make the whole economy work better if people are more willing to sort of move, to take jobs that are open, and to help -- >> we've been talking a little bit theoretically here, but for all of these things there is evidence. in fact we find that if you look amongst workers with college or more, that immigrants are twice as likely to pass, for example, as natives are. and that that has -- then there
is one more theoretical step. we do think that that's contributing to growth probably perhaps up to 2.5% over ten years. and that's something that then compounds and continues. there is also evidence of exactly what kim was saying, that first the immigrants have to pick a place when they first arrive, and they tend to pick the booming places, the most productive places, and then they're also more mobile within the u.s. even after their initial move than natives are. that also contributes to the productivity of the economy. also, evidence of the specialization of the natives in communication and english intensive jobs. >> i find that aspect a very important reminder not to think of our economy as a series of zero sum gains. but something this large, and this dynamic, you introduce an
element like a number of immigrants. it's kind of a leavening -- a series of secondary effects into the entire economic picture. so it's not a matter of sort of one immigrant, one native, and try to judge impacts, but this much richer picture which starts to emerge from this report. as we all know all too well, we've been living down a prolonged period of modest to slow to negligible growth rates. and there's ongoing concern over whether that's a circumstance that extends forward. before going forward on the demographic part, which we'll turn to dowel about, in looking at these economic impacts, i'm curious of how you judged
that -- the effects of that context? how were these dynamics changed by the fact that they played out during a period where the overall economy was either -- obviously had a severe downturn, but then the last eight, nine years of slow recovery, how we understand those effects, the effect of that context on these dynamics? >> that's something we certainly talked about in the panel. we realize that there wasn't really evidence how the context had changed things. so i could speculate, but it's actually not in the report, even though we also thought that was an important question. >> well, then, let's talk about the future then. one of the important topics, as you mentioned in your opening
remarks, is the -- how we think about the future influence of immigration on the economy, and one of the question that the report addresses is the long-term point of discussion, in the immigration debates, is the role of immigration in the social security, medicare, and other policies, an important part of the deficits you mentioned, that are certain to increase in the years to come. so -- dow, you've written about how in the past, that a lot of that is sort of reflected in the report, that immigration flows until now have helped mitigate in part some of the effects of an aging population.
what i'm curious about is hearing from the three of you how you think about this going forward. what does this report tell us about the way we should think of the role of immigration in what are certain to be very difficult debates? i mean, we've managed to avoid them for a long time. in washington, you never know. we could still avoid dealing with the fiscal effects of an aging population for a while longer. but there's going to come a time when this has to be addressed. this report attempts to give us some ideas about how to think about immigration in that coming debate. i was wondering if you could address, what are some of the important tangents that we see? >> as a demographer and planner, i've looked at the future oftentimes, and the big question is, when does the future start?
well, it already started. it started, i would say it started in 2000, 2001 to be exact. seriously, it did start already. we can't appreciate how it's evolving without looking at what's happened recently. most people's mind-sets about what is reality, really about ten years out of date. sometimes 20 years in california out of date. it's interesting. we don't really update things fast enough. we've gone through a very volatile period with a boom, the bubble and then the bust, then the recovery. now you're asking the future beyond that. and people's perspectives are just really lagging very much. so let me just quickly recap. there was rapid growth in the 1970s and '80s. like 20 million people per decade were being added in the work force. rapid. and then it started to slow down. but immigrants started to pick up in the '70s and '80s and '90s and filled some of the gap. the current decade we're in
right now, 2010 to 2020, we're right in the middle of it, in the middle of this decade, it's a total transition, where the working age population is now shrinking down to 8 million growth. most of that now is immigrants and their children. next decade it's all immigrants and their children. there is really no third generation-plus native native growth after 2020, because the large baby boomers -- the large baby boomer generation that came in in the '70s and '80s is now going out the back door and shrinking the labor force as they exit into retirement. it's a massive exit. there's still 40% of the newcomers in the labor force, still these third generations. there's not enough of them to offset the parents and grandparents going out the retirement stage. what it means is, we're shifting
our reliance tremendously to this foreign-born population and their children, who we fortunately invested in in the past. as much as we needed them to invest, to have a prosperous retirement. because we can't go back. so i hope we invested well when we were looking at the future back in 2001. although i have some doubts. but let me just say, in terms of the ratios, there's a simple way of looking how dependent we are on the younger generation now that we did invest in hopefully. it used to be there was seniors 65 and older per 100 working age people. 24. it's currently up to 27, it's rising. and by 2030, it's up to 40 in the u.s. so it's jumping tremendously. and without immigration, the ratio would rise even more.
another quarter, 25% greater rise in the ratio. so immigrants have helped to sort of balance our population. they can't stop aging. unfortunately nobody can stop aging. but they can slow its increase and keep us a little more balanced. now, that's the big picture on what's happening going forward. there's specific occupations that have to be filled. 1078 are high skilled, some are low skilled. but there's a generational support system where we're all intertwined. it's not really -- you can't separate the natives from the immigrants, or the immigrants from parents and their children. we're all really intertwined. there's a 25-year generational rotation that's ongoing. and we need to make that work a little more favorably than it has, because we're becoming so top-heavy now with all these retirees who deserve their retirement. they will claim it. i will claim it. and i always point out that this
large baby boomer bubble that is causing so much trouble, it wasn't our idea. it's nobody's fault. it's just a natural path of events and we have to make the best of it. we are fortunate that we still have immigrants that want to come join us. >> i was going to add to that. we sort of go to the fiscal side of this. one thing that is also important to remember is, even though we sort of talk about people paying into social security, and medicare, and about people feel like they've made their payments in, and that's what they're getting out, it's a pay as you go system. so it isn't necessarily the case that dowel's money is sort of sitting there waiting for him to retire. the money that's going to actually be used to pay off his social security is the money that you guys over here who seem pretty young are going to pay in. right? so it's basically something that we're in a pay-as-you-go world, so part of what we're doing is
we need people to sort of keep coming, or be part of the labor force, and to sustain employment, in order for these things to work. how big or small these issues are, and sort of what the fiscal part looks like, it depends on how long existing people as they age continue to work. and two, in addition to sort of what's going on with the population, what we decide as a country on the fiscal side. you know, there are all sorts of conversations that happen that aren't necessarily getting resolved in washington. sort of, how do we fix social security and medicare. if we can slow down the rate of growth in health care costs, that would help. if people worked a little bit longer before they retired, that would help. if we actually raised taxes and cut other spending, that would also help. but a lot of this is going to be dependent on sort of having workers be part of that, and immigrants and the children of
immigrants are increasingly a large part of that. >> let me just follow on there. what i admire most in the report are the fiscal chapters. there are some beautiful graphs in there that look at the second generation who was born in america, grew up here, educated in america. how much more they pay in taxes as they become more educated. going from a high school degree to a college degree to a post-graduate degree. it's amazing the increase. and i just know that when i'm trying to sell my house, i hope that some of the better educated people show up on my doorstep, and not the undereducated ones that i couldn't afford to invest in earlier on. we really have to pay forward in order to reap the tax benefits going forward into the future. and so the future already started in 2001, we might be in trouble, because we didn't do enough. but we still have a chance for the decade ahead, roberto. >> did you want to weigh in on this? >> i'm not as good at foreseeing
the future as my colleagues. >> none of us are. you know, it does -- in a way you've just described this, when we go back to the thorny fiscal question of, to whom do you ascribe the costs of educating children. i mean, do you ascribe it to -- i mean, there are two obvious choices, the children or the parents. but the picture you're painting -- it really is the people who are going to collect social security benefits are the ones who are reaping the benefits of that education. all right? >> right. >> well, yeah, the notion -- you know, in this longer term picture, where you imagine the second generation, this very large -- the children of the '80s and '90s and the oughts
becoming important contributors to our fiscal balance out in the '20s and '30s when all this crunch comes, i mean, that's really the payoff for the investment that was put in at the state and local level in their education. right? >> right. and there's some mismatch with that. if you feel the federal government is getting a lot of the benefit that states are paying for it. but that's a whole other area. part of the reason the report is 500 pages is, we look at these questions like, who do you a tribute the cost of education to? how do you make assumptions about how you're looking forward, what we're going to do in terms of balancing the budget? and part of the reason it's 500 pages is that we have a plethora of economists, and so our answer to most of these questions was, we'll do it both ways. and so you'll see things where we look at things on an average cost, where we basically a tribute things to everybody.
and then things we'll look at sort of, well, is it really fair to say that immigrants who are coming in should be paying o out -- there are things called public gs that we generally think don't -- the costs don't increase if you add another person to it. part of what we do in the fiscal section of the report, which we did new work in, if we looked at things on an average basis, and then also on a marginal basis, and not surprisingly if you don't a tribute things like defense to immigrants, they're actually very attractive and they help make the fact that we have these big deficits for affordable for the rest of us. >> well, that's good. let me go to another thing you said. you also said that there was -- we have new immigrants arriving. but we also have immigrants who
are already here. and there's two ways to calculate the costs. when we go forward into the future, do we use the profile of the typical new immigrant, the people already here? or do we use a profile that's based on those who arrived just recently, in the last five years? and you want to make immigrants look worse, you would use the old immigrants as a profile who are less educated, and the new immigrants look like a better fiscal bargain, you would use the new. some prefer to use the old. but the facts are, and this shows clearly in the report, that education has been rising steadily since 1970 for immigrant arrivals. each decade steadily higher, higher, higher, and so how could you go back and use the old when really the new is even probably underestimated for future educational attainment of new arrivals. i just point that out because that is in the news today also. people using old immigrants to represent the future. and it's not consistent with current trends. >> and in the report we viewed
both. basically in the report on the fiscal side, we do a number of things. the first thing we do is we do year by year sort of accounting of what these things look like, the first, and third plus generation, both controlling for the age profile and also looking at whether things are more or less recent. and then we also do something where we do a 75-year projection going forward where we basically look at if you have an additional immigrant coming, what are the taxes paid and services received of them and their children. and so like their children and maybe their grandchildren, 75 years in the future, where we're basically adding this up. and in general, immigrants look really good. that's sort of where you basically get both the amount of money you're investing, but also that return from those kids in the allocation to that immigrant
when they first arrive. then we also do stuff state by state for the state and local work, just showing how that varies across different places. >> i just want to underscore what might seem like a method logical or accounting issue, which is the measurement of impact at 75 years rather than a shorter time frame. i mean, the nature of immigration is such that you don't know the actual effects on a society, when the second generation reaches adulthood. this is a confounding factor in any discussion of immigration. the image i draw is if we had been sit here a hundred years ago, in 1916, the conversation about the impact of the european immigrants who had arrived in the previous ten years would have been extraordinarily dire, but their absolute inability to work in an industry economy,
they were unfit to be citizens of a democracy, they're producing crime, illness and who knows what else. less than 75 years later, 50 years later, that generation had conquered the world, had brought about the american century, had defeated authoritarianism in europe and asia, and was confronting communism on the world stage. if you take a short term view, particularly if you take a very narrow contemporary view, you lose sight of this. this report, when it casts its eye out in the 75-year projections, you see an entirely different set of assumptions. there's one other -- just one other housekeeping detail. large conceptual housekeeping detail.
if i'm not mistaken, this report says in assessing fiscal impacts, correct me if i'm wrong, that similarly situated natives, foreign born, have the same fiscal impact; is that correct? there's nothing about being foreign born per se. >> so what we do is attribute costs and benefits, and i really should have a green eye shade right now, to individuals. we do this in a number of ways. we start with individual information we have about people. if you're receiving certain benefits or you're paying specific taxes, we sort of attribute that to you. what we find, even though there are certain costs that immigrants have, like for example the cost of like bilingual education, or programs for immigrant children, we attribute to those children. but in general, most of the costs, and when we average most things in, the costs and
benefits of immigrants and natives are largely being driven by a few factors, one of which is sort of their education and their income levels. so the education of the immigrants themselves, their income, and their age. so that sort of gets -- and the number of kids they have. so what we find is that the people who are most expensive are those people that have kids. so the fact that immigrants look for expensive has much more to do with the fact that they are younger and they have kids, and less to do with the fact that they are foreign born. and that's where this whole question about whether we're sort of look at them as investments or not. the other thing to note is if you look at an individual, whether they're foreign born or native, you see definite costs and payments in over a life cycle or over sort of a 90-year period. if you start off, you find that
someone comes or is born. they're really expensive sort of when they hit age 5 and we're sending them to school. so basically state and local governments are paying for education. they're sort of in school until they're either 7 or 21. and they're expensive. they start paying taxes when they're 21 or so. you're getting a big benefit as people are paying taxes and they're not necessarily using services themselves, so you sort of have this picture where they're above the line. then we hit 65 or 70, where the costs to the government are higher again because they're receiving social security and their health care costs go up. and so basically anybody, if you look at an individual person and you look at sort of how they interact with government, you see that they get money at the beginning and get money at the end, and in the middle their paying in, hopefully to cover those costs and to make the whole system work. >> children and old people are
annoying as they cost money. but the important thing here, i want to go back to this point, if you -- a couple that has three children and sends them to public school is producing the same costs. >> pretty much. >> pretty much, regardless of their nativity. >> yes. >> the payoff on the back end when the kids grow up for some reason is higher for the immigrants' children than for the children of native born. the second generation on all the studies, all the graphs, we show this higher payoff. and it's not totally clear why. >> i think part of this has to do with, they get a little bit more education, and they probably are specializing in things that might have a little
more payoff. you have the kids of immigrants becoming doctors and lawyers and scientists are aren't necessarily going to become become ethnomusicologists. nothing agains against ethnomusicologists. >> now let's turn to the contentious issue of the day, which is much more the short term effects of low skilled immigrants. where you were going to take us initially. this report adds significantly to a nuanced understanding of the interactions between those workers and other similarly situated workers and the economies in which they exist. i was wondering whether you
could just give us the high points of that analysis. >> especially since both you and apparently "the washington times" mentioned the short run, one of the things we talk about in the report, because we don't really know what the short run is in practice. in theory we know, but in practice we don't know. so the short run would be, you suddenly have a huge wave of people come in a few months, and there wasn't really time for much to adjust in the economy. but we rarely see that in the u.s. there's more like steady but steadily increasing flows. interestingly, even at the theoretical models have not really dealt with the case, how do firms change their behavior knowing that immigration is coming and is gradually increasing? so surprisingly, we don't actually have a good theoretical model for that. so overall, the first thing i should say, we in the report and the authors we cite in the report, we don't find there's
any effect on the employment rate of natives from immigration. in the u.s., no one in the literature is concerned about the employment rates of natives. so the whole question revolves around what is the effect on wages. and just like the previous report, we actually find that on average, the effect on native wages is actually about zero. and then the question is what's the more nuanced picture. theoretically speaking, we expect immigration to benefit natives overall, including business owners and workers. then we expect there to be winners and losers. that's true within workers as well. and who the winners and losers are depends on the makeup of the immigration flows. it's a bit complicated, because as kim said, the immigrants are concentrated at the top and the
bottom. and normally the losers are going to be people, native workers who see inflows of people just like them. in theory you would expect it to be the natives at the very top and very bottom who are hurt. but at the top there's this issue that there could be a completely different thing, you help, the productivity is increased by having people to work with, they're complementary and not substitutes. for that reason and also for reasons of equity, we're most concerned about seeing native high school dropouts who are about 10% of the population. and what we did agree in the report is it does seem as though they have people whose wages are decreased by immigration. however what we could not agree on was a number. we came to a consensus about the sign, not about the number. and in fact there's a big range
of studies that range from very small negative effects to actually quite big negative effect. and we did not take the step of saying, well, there was this or that floor and the one that found the small or the big effect, we couldn't actually get consensus on that. so we agree there is a group of natives at the bottom who experience a negative effect, we don't know exactly how large. >> roberw berbertroberto, can i jenny a little bit? it's not in the report, i know. there's a very small effect on natives, yet incomes aren't doing well for the natives. somebody has to be blamed for that, something or somebody. what else could be causing the fact that incomes have stagnated the way they have until recently? >> you could write a whole -- >> i'm guessing they have. >> that's a very good point. i think actually there might be a sense or two in the report.
the big -- you're exactly right, the wages of the less skilled in the u.s., men in particular, have been falling, not falling quite to the level of female wages, but -- and the main explanatory factors that people have in mind for that, technological change. offshoring, so moving production of -- actually especially less skilled tasks abroad. and then perhaps the -- a little bit, but i don't think anyone thinks immigration, even the studies that find the big negative effect, even that is not enough to explain much of this phenomenon, so correct in sign but not a magnitude for i am allegation. there's currently a bit of an argument after a long time of thinking that trade and goods was not important. that's more of an open question now. those are really the big
factors. no one really thinks -- this is such a big phenomenon, no one thinks that immigration is a big contributor to that. but that's an excellent point. >> this also gets back to the fact that returns to education are increasing. overall in the country. and so when we're talking about this, especially when we're talking about natives with less than a high school education, that's becoming an increasingly small group of people. as more and more people are graduating from high school. and so you basically find that you have to sort of understand sort of who it is we're talking about. and so how you sort of think about it, are we talking about the 50 or 60-year-old person without a high school degree who probably spent his life in the factory and, you know, was actually earning a pretty good wage, or are you talking about the 18 to 20-year-old african-american who just basically dropped out of school and is having a tough time?
and so part of this is also trying to understand some of who these people are who are left in specific groups, and why we think there might be different effects. so one of the other things that were found in the report that's highlighted is, there does seem to be a small negative effect on the hours, not necessarily the employment, of teenagers, of immigration. and part of that, you could imagine, has to do with the fact that if newly arrived immigrants and people who were teenagers or young are going into the workforce, you could imagine there are limited numbers of entry level jobs, so there's some of that happening. is that fair? >> i wouldn't say a limited number, but they're in competition. and that might after the wages. and that in turn might affect how many hours the teens will want to work. >> one last topic before we turn
to the audience. we've talked about effects among highly skilled workers in the economy and low skilled workers. how do we understand the effects in the middle, where the report talks -- because of the hourglass shape of the immigration flows, they're not as direct. but there are certainly some effects. >> so i don't think that we have really good, purely empirical studies looking at this. we have studies that are a blend of theory and data looking at this. those studies say that precisely because there are not many immigrants coming in with middle skills and because the people in the middle might be complementary, they work with the people at the top and the bottom rather than competing with them, they suggest that at least relatively speaking,
immigration benefits middle skill natives compared to the high and low skill natives or at least compared to the low. the high, it looks like perhaps that there's some evidence it's not as solid as some other, but they may even benefit also from immigration. so the middle and the higher skilled probably are benefiting. the lower skilled probably are being hurt. >> i want to explore a little bit about those benefits, can you say a little bit more about what they constitute, how somebody in the middle, they might not perceive it directly, but where in their checkbook accounts they would see the effects? >> an example would be, take construction, and we talk about -- >> we'll go back to you. >> you can go first. >> we talk about, say, construction. that's a classic, there's lot of
inflows of people from mexico, central america, into lower level construction jobs. but there are people who are the supervisors of those people. and so if they actually do reduce the wages of the narratives at the bottom, there will be a bigger demand for construction services because they're cheaper, and that will increase the demand for, more likely, the natives who are the supervisors, and their wages will go up. >> so i was just going to say part of this, and part of the reason i may be more on these messages than others, i spent all day doing some of this with the national academy directly, went through the slides that we have. partly, if you go beyond employment and wages, there are other ways that for, you know, that whole middle section benefit from immigrants being in the country, right? so in terms of housing costs or construction is probably less, those costs are less because
immigrants acting as construction workers. in certain regions in the midwest especially, where they're losing population, the fact that you want to sell your house, the fact that there are immigrants coming in is probably the main thing propping up those house prices. there are also all sorts of service industries that are helping make the economy run and the country run. you know, if we think about where immigrants are working in terms of, you know, working as domestic help within the house, health care aides, nannies, there are all sorts of direct effects that everybody, even if you're not working with somebody in your job who is an immigrant, they might be affecting your life and sort of helping things run smoother. >> on the consumer side. >> on the consumer side, exactly. >> and certainly many prices. >> yes. >> that's where people in the
middle will obviously notably see the impact, is on what they pay for all kinds of goods and services, housing, a variety of other factors. >> and there are certain industries and certain occupations that are predominantly staffed with immigrants. and often these low skilled immigrants that people don't necessarily want to do those jobs. a colleague of mine was at a hearing yesterday on long term care. and you think about the people who are working in long term care facilities, a disproportionate number of them are not very well paid, often recent immigrants who are doing sort of some of the thankless work that we really need to do and that will become increasingly important as people age as a society. >> so let's turn to the audience
for a little more than ten minutes or so. and then we'll come back to the panel for some closing thoughts. so i think there's a microphone, is that right? there is a microphone. raise your hands, please let us know who you are. i think this gentleman at the front is right off the mark. >> your report seems to confirm previous studies showing that the effects on wages tend it affect native borns without a high school education. in addition to that you say it also affects prior immigrants. does that help explain why there may be a few anti-immigrant sentiment by the prior immigrants? >> actually i'm often surprised that there isn't more anti-immigrant sentiment in the u.s. amongst immigrants. over time and place, it's
common, immigrants think they and all prior immigrants are fantastic but everyone who came after them is somehow not so good. i think it's for this reason, you're right. >> can we have a microphone over -- here we are. >> jack martin. the importance of this study, it seems to me, is that it provides information with regard to decisionmaking, which is important because of the fact that immigration is a discretionary policy. it's not written in stone. so when you find in the study that there are disparate effects with regard to who it is coming in, particularly low educational level, low wage workers having a more negative effect with regard to the fiscal consequences, that
would seem to inform the fact that there's a valid debate with regard to how many of those lower educational level, non-english speaking people coming into the country because it has more of a negative fiscal effect. but the other issues really have to do with how many you're talking about. and as i understand it, the results of the study suggest that the more, the better in terms of the economic advantage of a large number of immigrants coming into the country. but doesn't that ignore the fact that there are other outside factors such as crowding and impact on the environment and so on, which i assume are not taken into consideration at all in this report? >> so we don't make any policy recommendations in the report.
if you go to chapter 10, and you're looking sort of after we spent this three years doing this, what we think sort of optimal policy for immigration would be, you'll be a little disappointed. partly we were tasked with sort of laying out information and helping inform people to make those decisions. we make recommendations, but they're mainly about the need for better data, which is -- i shouldn't make light of it, it would actually be incredibly useful for us to know more information about sort of who that second generation is. but i think a lot of what you're saying is valid, and i think those are interesting questions and policy debates we should be having as a country sort of about whether and how we want to change immigration policy, and if there is some level. but we don't really get into those things. >> i do want to follow up a little bit. so the one key thing to know is that the benefit of immigration comes from immigrants being
different from the natives. at least if you put aside the innovation and the spillover questions, issues. so if we had an influx of immigrants to the u.s. where basically a twin of every person already in the u.s. came in, you would actually expect that in the end, it would just be a bigger u.s. with everything the same otherwise, same wages, same prices, because the benefit comes when the immigrants are different and it allows for greater specialization. one of the advantages of having lower skilled immigrants is in some cases they're offering services you don't get in europe because the immigrants are not sufficiently low skilled that these services are offered. that's one almost impossible to measure benefit of the low skilled immigrants. you need to add that. you need to add the fiscal side.
>> so the demography, the demographic differences are actually sort of driving a lot of when we talk about the fact that having immigrants coming in. >> the point is that the report doesn't offer these policy prescriptions. it's a 500-page report put on the table as a buffet for you to choose from and for us to argue about later. because it really does feed a lot of ideas. >> just to finish, you need to add the specialization, the fiscal, and the lowering the native wages all together. when you make your decision, there are three things about low skilled immigrants. >> education is a balancing act, you have to balance all these objectives. you need more data and insights to put into the balancing question. >> any other questions? yes. >> good morning. amandabe bergson-chillcot.
my question has to do with the difference between the national picture and the state and local picture. this is clearly an evidence-based report. what data is in the report that would be of most interest to a state level policy maker who is trying to health issues at the state level rather than the sort of 30,000-foot national level of these issues? >> chapter 9. which i did a lot of the work on. but basically what we do and what is different than what was done before, and partly because i thought it was really important for us to do, is in that chapter we actually break out sort of the fiscal costs and benefits for state and local governments, state by state. and so a lot of this comes down to both the characteristics of the different populations, so the different groups, and also the decisions that states are
making in terms of the level of spending on education and the tax systems they have in place. and so -- but if you're a state, you know, budget person, or if you're just a state legislator, they'll basically go to that chapter and see what things look like in california as opposed to texas. it will break out how much this varies. the thing i hope they take away from this, because we do find in general that immigrants cost more than they contribute, is that second generation, where we're actually seeing this return, even to many states. the problem is, because people are mobile, and because state tax systems are less progressive and less based on income, it means that the returns aren't necessarily as clear for the states that have to make that investment in education, for what benefits the country as a
whole. for state folks i think there's going to be a lot of delving over those tables, and hope it helps. >> time for one last question. you're straining there. >> hi, i'm heather stewart from the association of international educators. i want to speak to higher education for international students. can you speak to the spillover effect of international students on campuses in the u.s., and also to, after they graduate, some portion of them would like to remain and work in the united states, what effects does that have on our economies and on our communities? thank you. >> that's a very good question. and there's only a little bit in the report on that, which i think reflects partly the literature is not quite as big as you would think. we did have a couple of papers in there that we discuss that
look at how the choice of field of natives is affected by the arrival of the immigrants. but that's only a little part of your question. we can talk after about what's not in the report. we don't have a good understanding. there's a very limited amount in the report. >> it's kind of amazing, given that it's a 500-page report, how much is not necessarily in there. that keeps coming up. >> you now have approximately a minute and a half each for a bon mot that summarizes the 500 words. what is the takeaway here? or what do you want to add? let's go across this way. >> so one thing that we haven't mentioned yet, i do when i talk about these things stress what the impact on natives is because
i find that's what natives are most interested in. but we haven't mentioned that immigration is very, very beneficial to immigrants. one thing we have in the paper, it's a very crude calculation, extremely crude, but we calculate that the size of the economy, of gdp, is about 11% larger because of immigration. that's in itself something that people are interested in, not the size, per capita, most of that benefit does actually go to the immigrants, but chalk that up as a good thing. so to summarize, what we show in the paper is that as we would expect theoretically but we find empirically, immigration raises the income of natives as well as the immigrants. but there are winners and losers amongst the natives. on average, no effect on the wages of natives, no effect on the employment of natives.
but some negative impact, as kim stressed, the small group by now of very unskilled natives. and yes, i'll leave it at that. >> i would just:00 with two broad point. one being that we cannot evaluate immigration in a static way, at a moment in time. it's impossible, because the investments or the costs of immigrants are at one point in time and the payoffs are later. if we don't look over time, we're not able to make any decision at all that's at all reasonable. and at the same time, the native-born population over time is also evolving. we're all evolving through time. the aging baby boomers in particular will be the predominant factor for the next 20 years, impacting the fiscal state of america. and so that's just inescapable. fortunately, children grow up. and children become the new taxpayers and the new workers and new homebuyers. so we have to keep both those
things looking forward in time. i'll stop there. >> and i think we've covered a lot of what i think is important in the report. i think the points about the fiscal stuff is really important. one of the things that we do cover that we didn't get into as much is the fact that immigrants are actually moving into a larger set of communities. so there is more geographic dispersion. and i think that's sort of an issue that, you know, warrants more study. so i would like to think rather than this being the last word on these topics is sort of an opening way of sort of putting some information out there that we can then build on and sort of expand what we know and what we need to know about the topic. >> absolutely. as i said at the onset, this report, is opens a chapter of study and debate that will take a long time to digest, add to, and expand on, much the way new
americans produced volumes following it, this really seeds our study. and if there's a really, really simple bottom line to this, is it's not simple. and be wary of anybody on any side of the argument who tries to convince you that it's simple. thank you. [ applause ] >> that was just terrific. so as we're bringing this panel off and we're going to move the next one on directly, if you need to stretch your legs, let me encourage you to do that in place, if we can, because we're going to go straight into the next discussion without a break. but it was really a wonderful chance to have three people who were part of three years of deliberation, dig into and explain for us the information. and we're going to move from this discussion immediately into a discussion about the lived experience, and the ways in
which the broader trends that we were talking about are playing themselves out at the state and at the local level. and while our next panel is getting miked, i wanted to also just thank those of you who are participating in a very robust social media conversation about this discussion. i really want to -- it's interesting sozz whto see what are pulling out from the panels and highlighting online. and i think those are areas that we can explore some more. i will say that the urban and usc are very excited about trying to dig into some of these consequences in our work together that's going to happen in the next chapter. so we will have our panel miked in just about 15 more seconds, and we'll move right ahead.
so urban institute senior fellow audrey sippinger will moderate s next discussion. and are we good to go? thank you, audrey. >> thank you. welcome to the starting point. we're bringing it down to the state and local level. i'm audrey singer, a senior fellow in the metropolitan communities housing center here at the urban institute. we're delighted to have you in the room with us and those watching on the webcast, welcome as well. before i introduce our panelists, i just want to say a word about the picture that we have behind us. when i saw that picture, i e-mailed kim rubin, asking her if that was two members of the
study panel when they received the final report, jumping for joy. she wrote back saying, no, there would be 500 pages a book in her hand, not just one page. so this is a naturalization ceremony with a certificate, i believe. so we're really excited today to have a stellar set of speakers from several communities around the country. next to me is renato soto, the co-founder and executive director of connection americas in nashville, which has one of the nation's fastest growing immigrant populations long all metropolitan areas. connection is a nonprofit that serves primarily latino families in the nashville area, with programs like learning english and supporting the educational success of children and otherwise helping immigrants integrate into nashville.
sonia lynn is general counsel and policy director of the new york city mayor's office of immigrant affairs. moya is an agency that work to ensure the wellbeing of immigrants and supports their economic, social, and civic integration. and many, there are numerous programs and policies i'm going to ask her to talk about those in a bit, but sonia, her main responsibilities, she leads programs that promote access to justice by connecting immigrants to free and safe immigration legal services and also citizenship support. and they do that in a variety of ways, often through trusted community-based organizations and libraries across the city. senator moises dennis is a state senator from nevada, i should say nevada, i know better, but
i'm from the east coast. he's been a member of the legislature since 2011. mo is also the co-chair of the national conference of state legislatures task force on immigration. he works with other state senators across the country to focus attention on state level concerns around immigration issues and to help ncsl influence policy and legislation at the national level on a range of issues. i really want to congratulate nas and the study panel experts for this report. it says a lot about a lot of things, as we've just heard. and it's much harder to characterize things at the state and local level, the lived experiences of immigrants and the communities in which they live and work and go to school and worship and shop in.
and of course it's -- we were going to use that as a frame to have a much fuller discussion about what it's like in various communities around the country. and i should point out that of course immigrants are not evenly distributed around communities in the country. and their costs and contributions also really vary widely cross places. neither are there investments in immigrant communities, housing markets, labor markets, and the opportunities that they offer, also vary widely. different places attract different kinds of immigrants. that's kind of thing we'll be talking about here today. while the federal government is responsible for creating national laws and policies around immigration, most of the policies and the programs and the practices that affect immigrants and their families are operating at the city and the county and the state level. so it's the nashvilles and the new yorks and the nevadas and
the las vegases that are the places that face the practicalities of integrating immigrants. some places, especially those with a long history and identity as immigrants gateways, have been involved in the integration of immigrants into the social, political, and economic fabric in those places. they're more likely to have well developed organizations that reach out to immigrants. often they have nonprofits and community based organizations that have been started by immigrant newcomers, that carry on this nongovernmental role of being in between immigrants and the institutions and the communities in which they're integrating into. other places where immigration is a newer phenomenon, shall we
say are somewhat less excited about immigrant newcomers coming into their midst and often places over time have developed policies that serve to deflect or exclude immigrants, often aimed at those who are undocumented, but as we know, the undocumented and legal immigrants and u.s. citizens are all wrapped up, sometimes in the same families and households and certainly in the same communities. those policies tend to affect a larger group of people. so i'm going to start with renata. nashville is currently the home of about 150,000 immigrants. it's doubled in size since 2000. and immigrants now make up about 8% of the population. and i would like to talk to you about connection a bit. tell us a bit about the organization, its work and its goals, and what kinds of issues moved you to start the organization. >> it's great to be here.
i would say i'm one of the 40 million in the report. i came to the u.s. when i was 21, with the opportunity to finish college and stay here because of marriage. nashville is one of the many places that you describe, where many nashvillians did not know someone who spoke a foreign language and came from elsewhere in a clear and tangible way until 20, 25 years ago. connection americas is a response not only to the growth of latino families who are coming to places like nashville or atlanta, georgia, or charlotte, north carolina, or dalton, georgia too, but also a response to recognize that those families are looking to become part of the community and start a business and buy a house and pursue the american dream, that also the nashville community was
grasping a change that some welcomed more than others. we are a support network for those families that are arriving and also a place to have conversation with native nashvillians about why in the first place mexicans come to nashville, where are central americans arriving, what are the conditions we leave behind and what are the challenges and opportunities we're seeking in our community. we've been around now 14 years. our focus has been promoting the social, economic, and civic integration of families. it's a two-way street, immigrants are trying to learn a new language, new system, new customs, but we're deliberately understanding that nashvillians also have to adapt in reciprocal ways, and that we are a more diverse community, but that nashville will be only inclusive if we take the steps to make
sure that those immigrants have opportunities and tools to succeed, and nashville as a whole will reap the benefits of their contributions. we are an organization that at a very basic level, to break it down, helps families buy houses by accessing financial products that meet their needs. we help entrepreneurs find, pursue an idea, and turn it into a successful business, including a culinary incubator that pretty much highlights the conversation in the earlier panel of people that are coming with family recipes and with amazing creativity and skills, and are turning that into successful businesses, catering companies, wholesalers, and creating jobs for others, not just for themselves. we are also very invested in the
point of making sure that the second generation is also fulfilling what the report says, primarily focusing on ensuring that the children of immigrants or immigrant kids who are already a growing percentage of our school system in nashville have the opportunity to succeed in high school and become the first in their families to graduate from high school and go to college, through a national program developed by the national program of larasa, we're one of 20 organizations across the country who implement that. i'll talk more about how that connects to what we heard in the report. certainly we understand that immigrants are not just workers who want a good job, but are people full of aspirations and needs and assets and dreams. and we try to be a support at every point of their life in nashville, and hoping that we're also a voice for bringing nashvillians and am grants together, to understand how our
presence benefits our city. >> if you would like to say something about the second generation, i think it's of great interest, certainly in the report. it spends a lot of time talking about not just the short term but the long term benefits of this population. i don't know if you can elaborate on how the second generation is doing as they become adults, as they enter the workforce, are they staying in nashville, what's going on around that. >> so nashville, you know, even in our 14-year history we already can see the change of our community. 14 years ago when we started connection americas, we were mostly exclusively thinking about the resources, tools, aspirations, challenges, and assets of the first arriving parent. usually the dad who came to nashville for a construction job when nashville was in the middle of a construction boom, building a stadium for football and an
arena and other big infrastructure investments. i love to hear the story from a priest in our community, the neighborhood we're located, that says how in the early 1990s, his church changed by the number of single men that showed up to church. and then three years later, his church changed again because those men now were bringing their wives and kids who they had sent home now that nashville became a place where they saw a future and a place to call home permanently. so in that same way, at connection americas we see not only those adults who are the first arriving, learning english, being employed in service industry, hospitality. tourism is a very important industry in nashville, and certain the immigrant workforce is propelling the vitality of industry in big ways. but then also we started seeing the shift of our school systems.
and actually for us, it's more important to see what the school system is looking like, what the census tells us about how many immigrant are in our community. that's like the more real snapshot about what was happening in nashville. already 25% of our children in kindergarten are latino. and 30% of the students in nashville come from homes where english is not the primary language. and that continues to grow every year. we have a system of about almost 90,000 children. and so what we see now is both the children that came with their parents as immigrants but also the children being born in nashville who are already in kindergarten and now graduating from high school. and a few years ago, precisely recognizing that change in the clamor from parents to also have resources to help their kids succeed in school, we brought the nclr program to nashville,
an intense afterschool program to help them succeed. wi i can tell you we are in front of the american dream of the parents who might be employed at what you call low skilled jobs, although i would argue some of the people in this room could not build some of the beautiful walls we see around, i find it very, very skillful. certain their children are this group of people that have not only this expectation in their parents but this eagerness to make sure that they will be the ones in their family who have change the trajectory, who will make it to college. and that is great. we're trying to make sure that they have the supports to do that. however, we are also competing with our own self-interest in tennessee in that -- and in many places in the country. many of these kids who run documented are not seen as the tennesseans who they are, and therefore for them college is
more expensive, having to pay sometimes three times the amount of money as it would cost a tennessee student. while our state and governor is pushing a plan called drive through 55, meaning that in the next 20 years, tennessee will achieve that mark where at least 55% of our citizens will have graduated from high school and have some kind of secondary education, because only 25% of tennesseans do now, because wednesday the economic investment that having a more educated workforce will mean to our economy in tennessee. so on one hand, our governor and our system is pushing that we reach 55%, everybody let's get a secondary education somewhere. but on the other hand, we have about 14,000 students in tennessee who would benefit from in-state tuition rates that are
already saying, i want to go to college, i want to be a teacher, an engineer. we're making their work harder and we're making the path more expensive. and sometimes we're easily tempting them to go to another route in which they will not pursue further education. and so we see what the report says in two ways. the energy of those kids, what is propelling them, and the parents that are propelling them to achieve that, the eagerness to become the first in their families to go to college, to break that and achieve an educational level that many of their parents do not have. but yet in our state we're still grasping this sort of reverse policy that is against our interests when we're not making that possible for 14,000 kids and others behind them.
>> thank you. so new york, well, everybody knows new york is the place with the largest number of immigrants in the united states. it has a long history of receiving immigrants. it has the statue of liberty. there are nearly 6 million foreign born people in the metropolitan area there, which is a huge metropolitan area. mothers half of them live in the city of new york. and as a place with a history as a continuous place of settlement sets it apart from many places. so new york is really ahead of things in a lot of ways and it's kind of unfair to other places, but they are able to present options and opportunities that other places can't. and so what i'm interested in hearing from sonia about is how a municipal level infrastructure works, how the city government
works and invests in these communities, and their interactions not only with immigrant communities but with the nonprofit sector, various other city agencies, and what it's like to be in a place with a well-developed, well-funded infrastructure to support immigrant. so talk to us about what you guys do at moia and why the city invest so much. >> great. thanks, audrey. and thank you all for coming here today, thank you so much to the urban institute for hosting this really important conversation. i'm really excited to keep talking about these issues and to really dive into the report in the days and months to come. moia in new york city, as audrey mentioned, we have this broad mandate which i think is a fantastic one, which is to promote the well-being of new york city immigrants and support
their social, civic, economic integration. we at moia are in the city charter. we're within the mayor's office. we recommend policies to, you know, pursue our mandate. we conduct outreach throughout the city and immigrant communities in the five boroughs. we help immigrants navigate the city government, new york city generally. under the leadership of mayor de blasio and commissioner agerwal, we pursue a few strategies at moia in this administration. one, to really realize a vision that we have of inclusive government, an equitable city, a government for all new yorkers including the 3 million foreign born new yorkers, and make sure
that these immigrant new yorkers have access to city services to pursue their dreams, fulfill their potential. another focus that we have, as audrey mentioned, is supporting immigrants in accessing justice. for us that means making sure that we can connect people to immigration legal services, support them on their path to citizenship. we've done some research with the urban institute actually that shows the economic benefits of naturalization for immigrants, a rise in wages, in employment rates, it's good for immigrants, it's good for their families, it's good for us in the city as well. so access to justice is a big deal for us. and then advocacy on behalf of new york city immigrants at the local, state, and federal levels. and in doing this work, you know, we work with a really broad range of people. we're a small unit within the
mayor's office. it's not our job to serve all new york city iimmigrants. we do it in partnership with our sister agencies in the new york city government, with the really rich and broad kind of community of community-based organizations in new york, faith, labor, business. you know, we work with all kinds of stakeholders and partners who the benefit in supporting new york city immigrants. and then i think another sort of key to our success is thinking about, you know, testing innovative policies and programs, new approaches for delivering services, connecting to immigrants. we -- i think probably the best known program that we've launched in this administration is the idnyc program, new york city's municipal i.d. card which was launched at the beginning of
2015, so less than two years later, one in ten new yorkers has a municipal i.d. card. it's just been tremendously successful. i'm happy to talk about it more. i think it's been a really great learning experience for us. the partnerships and collaborations that need to happen, and how to design programs so that they're useful and beneficial to immigrant new yorkers and to all new yorkers. i think we've learned that that's a real necessary ingredient for a program's success. >> from what i know, it sounds like the nycid is one of those kinds of things that benefits not just immigrants that didn't come out of your office, right, or did it come out of your office? >> we were definitely one of the agencies involved. >> so the idea is that if you have one of these i.d.s, that you have access to a bunch of things, and it provides city
agencies and other organizations i.d. but i guess you've got one in ten now. do you have a sense of how well people are using this, what share are immigrants or foreign born people, what they're using it to access? i again want to stress, new york really is a laboratory for other places. and because they're a little bit ahead in terms of how they view immigrants and the money that they have to spend on them, these are lessons for other places. there are many other places around the country, cities in particular, that have municipal i.d.s and have had them over a while. we're let these a lot about how populations use them. i wonder if you can tell us more about new yorkers. >> absolutely. definitely we were not the first city to create a municipal i.d. program. new haven, san francisco, other
cities had these programs. and we are talking to sort of jurisdictions all the time that are interested in starting municipal i.d. programs. in new york, you know, i think sort of to answer one of your questions, audrey, but how are people using the i.d., you know, what benefit does it have to them. we actually did a study with a third party evaluation firm that came out last month to really dive into this question of, is it working, do people like it, what are they using it for, are immigrant actually using it? definitely immigrant new yorkers were a key population that we had in mind in designing and implementing the program. they were not the only population by any means. there is a card for all new yorkers. i mean, we wanted it to be broadly appealing in scope because we did not want it to be a card that stigmatized card holders. we wanted it to really be, you
know, something that signaled kind of the most precious identity of all, which is that of being a new yorker. i don't know, in my opinion. and the evaluation was my opini. the valuation was interesting. we confirmed the card is popular throughout the city, so we have card holders in all zip codes across all five boroughs. you know, definitely higher rates of enrollment in immigrant dense neighborhoods and populations. we don't ask about immigration status, by the way, so we don't know who's undocumented, documented, people's citizenship status. it is really do we know who you are, do we know that you live in new york city. those are the questions that we ask when people enroll. other things that we learned in the study are that the
immigrants who had a card, who self-identified as immigrants, responded to survey, 60% use it as their primary id. about 36% have it as their only form of u.s.-based id. people use it for all kinds of things. using it exactly as we hoped like entering city buildings, going to pick up their kids at school when oftentimes you need to show id, using it to open a bank or a credit union account with a participating financial institution, using it -- when we were designing the program, we worked with a wide range of cultural institutions throughout new york city who agreed, who were really excited actually, about offering free one-year memberships to their institutions for card holders, and that's been a really popular
benefit for the card and i think has drawn a really diverse cross section of new yorkers to the program. they're using it. the museums, the concert halls, the other cultural institutions are really thrilled to see anew populations come through their doors to see what they have to offer. we just announced new benefits this week where new york road runners, which is a recreational racing club, running club, has offered memberships to card holders and sporting goods stores offering discounts. you can get prescription discounts. it's kind of a key to the city for new yorkers. it's in their wallet. you can use it and enjoy everything the city has to offer. what i think is kind of the most powerful statistic that came from the evaluation was the
really high rate, i think, over 70% of respondents to the survey who talked about having the new york id increased their sense of belonging in the city and confirmed their status of new yorker, which i think says a lot about the power this bureaucratic piece of plastic can have. >> that's very interesting. it'll be interesting to watch that over the long term and to see what happens in new york and in other places as well. so most of nevada's half a million immigrants are in las vegas. immigrants have been drawn to jobs there in the hospitality sector, in the construction sector when there was a recent
boom, although they've been around since mid 20th century in some numbers. things really took off during the growth of the late 1990s when a lot of immigrant workers flocked to nevada and helped build a lot of the growth we've seen. and so now 22% of las vegas' and nevada's total population is foreign born, but the great recession also hit las vegas very hard. and vegas is one of those places that is used to having boom and bust economies, but where immigrants tend to work, the effects tend to go pretty deep in many communities. so if you could talk about both sides of what you do, kind of what you do for the state and also what you do as a member of this national task force on immigration, that would be great to hear about.
>> so i'm the son of cuban immigran immigrants. i was actually born in brooklyn, but we moved to vegas when i was 6. a lot of cubans back then were coming from -- even though my parents had come before kocastr a lot of cubans were coming from that era of castro and they were literally going from casinos in cuba to casinos in las vegas. in fact, yesterday i was at the circ circus, circus hotel which is one of the older hotels in las vegas. and we tend to tear things down and build them bigger. we're kind of going through that right now where we're tearing down some tough and building up new things. and from the national counsel state legislature, we've had this task force for about ten
years. i've actually been in las vegas since 2004, which right after that is when i became part of this task force. we've actually been to nashville to your facility and the wonderful things you're doing there. we've been to new york and the fed and looking at the economic benefits. we've been all over the country. we've been to the borders, including washington state, down in arizona, we've been down in california, and we've been to mexico city to talk to their folks about immigration. we've had this opportunity to look at all these things and kind of suggest some policies. some of the things i've seen across the country are amazing what they're doing with immigrants. in nevada, we've -- probably one of the biggest challenges is education. one thing that's different about nevada than a lot of states is we don't have a state income tax. all the money we get comes from
sales tax and property tax. regardless of your immigration status, everybody in nevada pays taxes because you have to live somewhere and you have to buy things. our economic studies in the past have shown that our immigrant population actually puts back $2 billion which is greater than the population as a whole, so it's been a great boom for us. but as you mentioned, we're boom or bust. the other thing we see from immigrants is a lot of the smaller business, the micro businesses, those kinds of things are doing very well. in fact, i remember seeing the ones, the culinary ones you have in nashville, that give you a facility until you have the opportunity to have your own. in nevada, we have similar
things. as a legislator, one of the big challenges that we had of many is the federal folks have it put in place, some type of immigration policy, that will work. we see a lot of different states doing different things. in nevada, one of the things that we did that took me eight years but we finally got it through is a driver's authorization card. it allows people to drive, be able to get their kids to school, go to the doctor. we already know they were driving. this way it gives them an opportunity to take the test and makes the road safer, gives them the opportunity to do insurance and those kinds of things. but we started that program, i think, three years ago. we now have 32,000 individuals that have applied for the card and use it. we have in our education system just in clark county in the las vegas area, which is about 80% of the population in nevada, we
have over -- i think it's over 80 -- i could be wrong. it could be more than that. there's at least 80 different languages that the school district has to deal with. hispanic being a large one. there's a lot of challenges there. we don't fund anywhere near the national average as far as education. with all that growth, at our heyday at the peak we were building a new school every 20 days in the las vegas area, opening up a new school. over a period of eight years, we have build i think 16 high schools, 32 middle schools, and 60 something elementary schools. we were having kids going to different schools every year and not moving. we have put some more investment, especially more recently in the last four years,
into the english language learner program. in the state we weren't doing that. we were using federal money for that. but now we have invested and we're seeing great results. there's a program called zoom schools that provides for pre-k. it provides for smaller classes, kindergarten, reading help, summer school. we've seen some amazing results there. we have doubled that effort this last legislative session, and now we're looking at actually changing the way we fund schools, the funding formula, to actually reflect the need for english language learns for special education and those kinds of things. but one of the things -- we talked about the lower skilled jobs, but we considered construction a skilled job because somebody has to train them how to do that. fortunately, when they come from wherever country they're coming from, they're already coming
skilled. while it costs us to educate their children, we didn't have to educate the parents. there's a cost benefit there even though it's expensive. these same parents that came because they want to make their lives better for their kids and work in hotels, their kids are not going to school and becoming the doctors and lawyers and engineers. in nevada, we don't have the issue of in state/out of state tuition based on your citizenship, so our kids are able to go to college. although the cost is still prohibitive in some cases and we're working on some of those things to try to bring down the cost, especially of community colleges. >> i think that's a really important point. this sort of non-quantifiable -- it goes back to the discussion of our panelists of what immigrants bring with them already and the fact that lower skilled people have skills that
are valuable and fit into the labor market in certain ways. not to put you too much on the spot, but as a state legislator, from what you heard on the panel -- and i'm sure you read the whole report on the way here. came on the red eye, so a lot of reading going on. but no. from what you've heard, does anything about either the state analyses or anything in there really resonate with you as a leader concerned with these things in the state of nevada? >> the one thing i know for sure is when you have these types of reports -- and we've had a few other ones come out this year. they're very helpful to us as policymakers because you can look at that. while there's some -- in politics, you're always going to have some folks it doesn't matter what you present to them. they already know the answer before you've even -- even though it's completely wrong. but for the most part, what i've
seen -- because the ncsl is bipartisan because i'm a co-chair, so we have democrat and republican that are co-chairs and the membership of the committee are that way. we work together to come up with policies that work. when we see these kinds of reports and specifically this one, i think it will be very helpful and it does look at the issue of the national versus the local. and as i mentioned earlier, depends on which date you're from it kind of impacts, especially fiscally and economically that you have. i've seen that as we have gone across the country and seen different states and the challenges that they have and how they fund things, so having that information is important. we have some folks from georgia and other places, washington state, where there's a lot of agricultural needs in many parts and the whole center part of the plains states where they have
different challenges with immigrants. what we've seen is many states have kind of -- they're piecemealing immigration policies that benefit them. so moving forward what we would hope to see is that something will get resolved and will get updated with immigration policy, but that will also give states the opportunity the ability to customize our individual needs so that it's not one cookie cutter thing for every state, but it will allow us to look at -- if we need this type of worker -- and nevada is a great example. while tourism is our bread and butter, we still have mining. we're the number three producer of gold in the world behind australia and south africa. we need people for those types of industries, but we've always
attracted a company that is going to build electric cars outside of las vegas. we have tesla that is going to be building the biggest battery factory in the world in nevada. we need workers for those industries and we have technology companies coming in. when you talk about hotels and hospitality, we don't think of those as technology companies, but everything they do now is technology with the gaming. we have that need in nevada to be able to attract those kinds of workers and to be able to educate the ones that we do have. >> well, you mentioned -- you phrased it very nicely. i think you said -- now i'm going to forget -- updated immigration policy. so since you went there, i think we'll talk about that. we're in a moment right now where immigration is really top of mind, top of the agenda, of a
lot of policy discussions taking place nationally with this presidential campaign season and just -- it's opened up a lot of discussions across communities, and i'm wondering if you could all talk about some of the challenges that you have on the ground dealing with issues that arise as they arise. you talked about bringing nashvillians together, resident nashvillians. i guess it's fair to say tennessee for most of its 20th century history was biracial, had native born blacks and whites. then as immigrants started arriving, they kind of int intersected this society there
in ways that may or may not have been comfortable. and now we're in a moment where it is sort of the age of inequality. we're talking a lot more about race. we're talking a lot more about immigration and how all of these things intersect. so on the ground, what does it feel like in each of your communities to have these conversations within these contexts and ultimately whether you have the right facts, study facts, some facts that you like, it does often come back to economic issues, so i was hoping you could oall offer some comments. >> as the previous panelist said, it's not a simple answer. certainly tennessee even though you might think and certainly wonder, latinos in tennessee, right? it's not a black and white story. i'll give you a couple of examples.
i would say if you ask any immigrant in nashville overall about how they feel about life in nashville that's why we've grown so much. it seems a welcoming place with a decent quality of life, better cost of living. many latino immigrants we have in nashville come both from their countries of origin, but others are moving from other parts like california where the cost of living is higher or where job opportunities are not as available or perceived to be as available as in nashville. nashville is a place that's been tested like in other places. in 2007, we fought an english only referendum. we were the first city of our size that took it to the ballot and to our borders. nashvillians defeated that by
sending a message saying that's not who we were or the kind of community we were building. the fact that connection americas exists and a non-profit that brings together ten non-profits under one roof that is funded by individuals is testament that nashvillians believe in the importance of investing in organizations like ours. now you get out of nashville. then you get into rural communities are people have perceive that change and welcome it in different ways. up until three or four years ago, at the state legislature we were fighting anti-immigrant bills. often 65 of them at the time. they were often a reflection of just making life harder for immigrants who were coming to
tennessee because we were offering driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants. interestingly enough, three years ago that changed. in a way for the first time we were able to be for something and not be just defending our community against bad things. to me, that's maybe a thermometer that the conversation might change. even more so, we for the last two years have been working -- and our colleagues, one of our partners has led the effort on tuition equality so undocumented kids can go to our schools, our public schools, paying us tennesseeans. in other states it's taken five years or more to get there. in tennessee, we're not there yet, but the first time we proposed it we lost that bill for only one vote which was
amazing in its own way. i have to tell you that actually the cosponsors of the bill were two republicans not from nashville, but one from chattanooga to our east and one from memphis to our west side. that is also a reflection of the understanding of people of all parties that it's in their best interests and the economic interest of that community. in one of the cases, the senator from chattanooga it was the realization of who was in his community and employers bringing to him the fact that we needed to make this potential workforce that we were educated already more integrated into the economic future of chattanooga. unfortunately, in tennessee also, like in many places, we're competing to see who can be more unwelcoming often. certainly the last year the effect of the rhetoric from
trump has affected our community too. and if we move forward in the last two years on this discussion on tuition equality as a one place where maybe tennesseeans were moving forward thinking that was a wise investment, thcertainly we feel these last few months we have taken many, many steps back. and actually we're feeling very concerned about the likelihood of this year when we bring this issue for the third time to the legislative session. how much are we going to move forward? and i can tell you that it is an interesting tale of people like the congressman in chattanooga making the case for why we need to open these policies and open the opportunity for these kids to go to college, but then on the other hand we're also making sure that tennessee was not
welcoming to muslim refugees. we were one of the states that said please don't send us any syrians. so i think that sounded like many places. we are schizophrenic about our view of who we want in our community at what point. and i think the work of organizations like ours and elected officials and the partnerships among them is the only way -- and sustained effort -- is going to make sure that people understand on a personal level and then also at a community level why all these things matter. in nashville in particular, often we feel a little bit complacent, that we are a welcoming community. when you were describing the work, for example, in new york city, an immigrant city then a place like nashville, i have to
say i'm more hopeful because i think it is unexpected for many people in the audience to believe we have sophisticated networks of support by the nonprofit sector and the local government in how we have responded to the demographic change in the last 20 years. the fact that your task force came here to see the work -- >> i didn't mean to diss you. >> no, no, no, no. that's why i'm here. the reality is that there are more -- i am hopeful that in places like nashville is where we're going to -- where we're testing like what americans believe about what it means to be an american. i think that new york you probably feel tested in so many ways, but that's sort of like our golden aspiration.
that we would be a community where people believe that that's who we are at the most essential way. i think in places like nashville is where we're testing that definition of what it means to be an american by how we are changed by now people that come to us. while it's really hard to be hopeful in today's world and in this electoral time, the response of nashvillians, both elected officials, citizens, and the nonprofits that have grown to respond to that, give me hope that maybe we'll get it right. >> so before we move to q&a, which we're going to do in a minute, i'm going to ask if you would like to briefly make a few more comments. >> i would. >> yes, absolutely. >> i'm going to try to be brief. i have so many things to say. but i'm going to try to be brief because i think she brought up some really interesting things. new york is different.
i think in reflecting on the last panel, i guess maybe new york is the future. we have 3 million immigrants. about 40% of the population is foreign born. 60% of the population are immigrants or the children of immigrants. 50% of the workforce is foreign born. half of the small business owners. immigrants are taxpayers. they're workers. they're employers. they're consumers. if we're not going to have a functioning city government, we have to have an immigrant inclusion strategy and we know that. it's not like a walk in the park. it's the most diverse immigrant population in the country probably, and so it means that we have to be smart and strategic and tailored in our delivery of services in light of the population in the city. but you know, it's not as controversial of an approach as it might be in other parts of the country, right? diversity is just kind of who we
are. we're proud of our immigrant story in the city. the one thing that's really interesting though is we are increasingly talking more to our counterparts, like other moias throughout the country about best practices, strategies, sharing ideas and innovative programs and policies, and joining together in advocacy in seeking reforms at the national level. in the last two years, we've helped spearhead the development of a coalition of localities, cities for action, that has, i think, over 100 mayors and county leaders now who have joined on. we have monthly calls. we share updates with each other. and then we work together to support the kind of national change that we all really want
to see. foremost of which is immigration reform, but we've also come together to urge the president to accept more refugees speaking from the local government perspective. we've come together to oppose efforts to defund sanctuary cities. we see that our interest is really in a robust national forum for immigrants and we want to bring that perspective and that voice to the conversation. so i do think increasingly there's that recognition. and i'm really excited to get to the weeds of the report and sort of figure out what is in there from the sort of local perspective that will give us more insight into what we're doing. >> so i think i'll just quickly talk about -- as we look to change policies, one of the things that's changed in the
last few years -- when i got ele elected, i was the only latino in the nevada assembassembly. two years later -- so i'm the son of an immigrant. two years later, another son of an immigrant got elected. so two of us were the hispanic caucus. then we went from two to eight. and we went from being just members to all of a sudden now i was the majority leader of the senate. and we've got committee chairmen. a lot of the policies have changed because people knew they had to pay attention, but i think more important than everyone that is we went from, i think, the immigrant population participation in elections back then to what it is today has changed and people are paying attention to those kinds of things. so we're seeing some changes because the immigrants themselves are becoming more engaged in what's going on, and
i think that people -- as the m immigrants do so, i think others are seeing these reports that come out. they actually get to know families that are immigrant families and see the type of things that are going on, so that's all been very helpful in this whole process. so i foresee that that will become even more so and we'll be able to get better policies. when i first got elected, it was really hard to pass anything that was trying to help the immigrant community. it took eight years, but when we got to the eighth year doing the driver's license was much easier because i had a lot more people th that had been elected and we had the opportunity. of course, i was the majority leader. that helped. but the community as a whole turned out and did things, so that's a real important part of this whole mix. >> yeah, i think leadership,
what you're alli inspeaking to, the role of state and local leaderships opening up discussions no matter how controversial and having the right tone -- it seems there's a lot going on in the places that you live in and work in. so i wanted to open up to the floor any questions, and we have maybe about, i don't know, time for two or three. we've got one right here. >> good morning. i wanted to ask you sort of an obvious question because it is always good to hear that immigrants are contributing in successful and constructive ways to the growth of the country, and you have many examples particularly in new york and nevada. but the id topic is certainly huge and we know why, because
there's always the potential for abuse and using it in some way that shouldn't be used. can you tell me a little bit more about how you go about -- it's now harder, for instance, to get a renewal of an id here in d.c. now you have to have your birth certificate where you didn't have to actually have that before. so have you found there have been problems with that? have there been more forgeries with birth certificates or any other issues with people trying to access this card because this card can obviously get you to a lot of places? >> thank you for that question. i think it's a really good one. when we were designing the program during the legislative process and the implementation process for the card, security of the card was really foremost in mind because we wanted it to be a robust card that would be widely accepted and could be
used ause us used as somebody's primary id. one of our main partners in the design implementation process was the new york police department, who worked with us really closely to set up the kind of protocols that we would need to be sure we did know who somebody was when they were applying for a card, that we could confirm their address so that when we put that information on the card we could do so with confidence. and we've been really pleased with kind of the safety and the security of the card. nearly two years in, we have a really strong integrity team that has really, you know, secure procedures for issuing the cards. we have not found them to be a sort of weaker standard than
comparable ids. when i say comparable ids, i mean state ids as our peers. we wanted the id to be able to serve that purpose, at least in the city. >> in nevada, we're not there yet when it comes to an id. even the driver's authorization card specifically says on it not to be used for id purposes. we can't limit businesses from doing that. the other issue, too, with the drivers issues was the real id act. you have to do it in compliance with that. so our card is the alternative. if you don't want a real id, you can get this drivers authorization card. many businesses still allow for that. the mexican government with their card has increased their security measures, so those can
be used where now in the past it was a little harder to use that. we've been able to use some of those for id purposes, especially when you're applying for the driver's license and other things. >> any other questions? we have one right here. >> renata, this is primarily for do you. you probably would appreciate this. most people do not know there are 400,000 fewer homeowners who are from white households from 15 years ago. 400,000 fewer white owner households today. at the same time, there's been an increase of nearly 3 million
hispanic homeowner households. to some measure, you have done this in nashville with your organization. at the same time, latinos have driven employment growth in the country by more than 2/3 during the last 15 years. the same has occurred in educational gains. there's a lower dropout rate. more latino kids are attending college and same thing in business. latina women are coming up with new businesses at a much higher rate than the rest of the population, which goes to my question. i add jason furman, who is the chairman of the council of economic advisers, conservatives tend to criticize the level of
employment right now claiming it is false. that the real problem lies with labor force participation rates. it just so happens if latinos have had a larger labor force participation rate since the year 2000, 69%, as opposed to 6% which was for the rest of the population. even today that same gap continues. 62 for the country, but it's 66 for latinos. and the question i asked mr. furman is do you think that the reduction that has occurred among latinos in labor force participation is due in part to the fact as it is reported in the report there's been a net wash where we have actually lost immigrants that have come --
>> is your question -- the question you asked to jason furman, one of our leading economists, you're going to ask to renata. >> i had hoped to ask cecilia also that same question. >> i don't understand the question. >> labor force participation reduction rates particularly for hispanics -- >> what rate -- >> i'm about to finish. have been lowered because more kids are attending school and staying in school, so that's actually a plus. it's an investment like you said in the future. so my question for korina and especially for cecilia is are you looking at the impact of latinos on the overall labor force participation rates because this is important for people who think employment is not where it should be? >> i will just briefly say
without being able to respond to your micro question at a local level in nashville labor participation among latinos and immigrants is pretty high. i don't know for other communities. our concern is more underemployment. we know a lot of people are working two or three jobs because there's no full-time jobs. and underemployment is our concern. it is not participation in the labor force. >> yeah, i think there's a lot of fodder in the report that addresses these issues either directly or indirectly. are there any questions from the floor from over here? there's one back there. yeah. actually, i'm told we have got to end. so maybe we can talk at the end, but we've got to stop because we have our next -- our keynote has just arrived.
i want to thank our panelists for hanging with us on this topic and this very serious thick and report. thanks for being with us. >> thank you. >> thank you. [ applause ] >> this has been a really extraordinary morning, and i am particularly pleased that we've gone from, what was it, a plethora of economists who bring a lot of insight of a kind and then to be able to hear what's happening in three of america's most dynamic cities and the ways in which that work is playing itself out on the ground in the ways which local economies have benefitted has been really nice. and we're going to close our program today probably with the most fitting possible way we could have to end this
discussion. i have the great pleasure and honor of introducing the director of the domestic policy council, assistant to the president. cecilia munoz. that means education. that means health care and energy and climate change among so many other things, but there's probably no other issue that's been more central to her work and her life than the one we have talked about today. she has also relevant to this discussion played a role previously in helping to manage the white house's relationship with government leaders. again, understands the national impact and local government. prior to joining the administration, cecilia was at nclr where she was senior vice president in the office of
research, advocacy, and legislation. as i'm sure you all know, that's the nation's largest latino civil rights organization. there she worked on employment, education, housing, and of course immigrant policy. whether it's been from the state level, the city level, looking at the advocate perspective and now representing the president of the united states in the formulation of his immigration policy in a larger national context, some of the most fraught and divisive times, the president could probably have had no better adviser at his side than cecilia. the macarthur foundation announced its fellowships. they don't like -- i'm not sure if they like to call them or not the genius awards, but they are inspiring young leaders.
back in 2000, 16 years ago, she was one of the macarthur foundation's fellows. we're really lucky to have her close out today. please join me in welcoming cecilia munoz. [ applause ] >> thank you, sarah. what a lovely introduction, one that will be very hard to live up to. i'm really excited that you're doing this, that you're having this conversation at the urban institute. it's an incredibly important part of the piece of the conversation, but to also dig into the local work that's happening, the work of integrating immigrants. we get an awful lot, an awful lot, without being nearly deliberate enough. one of the things this administration has been doing
which i'm really proud of -- and i've lost track of my colleague who is standing back there who works at the domestic policy council, is leading the quest on this charge. we're actually aligning the federal agencies on this question of immigrant integration to make sure that we're doing our part along with the likes of the folks you just saw on your last panel. that's a tremendously important effort, and we are connected to this welcoming movement as a way of lifting it up and strengthening it, because for all that we get, economically as well as different ways from the immigrant community, we can do better and we should. i'm really grateful both for that work, but also for your lifting it up and very grateful to be part of this conversation today. so this is a timely topic.
in preparing my remarks and thinking about it and reflecting, it's never not been a timely topic. it seems we are always in the thick of debate on immigrants and their value to this country, their potential with competing with the rest of us, and on the necessity of immigration reform. clearly, we're in the thick of such a debate now -- and i should say at the outset if folks are interested in or hoping i would comment on the current public debate i'm afraid i'll have to disappoint you. i'm a government official. we're not commenting on things related to campaigns tempting though it might be, but i am in a policy making role. i can comment on the administration's policy views, on the really interesting and important contributions of the study you've been discussing today. it confirms what's been clear for a long time, well over a decade, and some may say that it
is well clear over a century. fears about competition within the workforce are vastly ov overblown. with the exception of children, who are expensivexpensive, immi are not because we educate them. it's the right thing to do. they are well established and very vital to our well being and our future. we know this. the study we've been talking about today provides vital updated analysis and depth that reconfirms it, so there's room for honest debate here, but really there's no serious argument that immigration is anything but a net positive for our economy. so we also know if we were to fix what everybody acknowledges what is broken about our immigration system, we could do even better than we're doing economically. the congressional budget office
found a proposal would grow the economy by an additional 5.4% compared to the status quo, reduce the federal budget deficit by nearly $850 billion over the next 20 years, reduce the federal debt by three percentage points, extend social security insolvency. there's a whole host of good things that are now documented that would have resulted at least from the immigration reform that passed the senate in 2013. now i have spent the last eight years working alongside the national economic council during a period of epic economic downturn and pretty epic recovery. and i've learned that the arsenal of tools that we have to spur economic growth, especially in the short term, is pretty limited. and frankly, we used every lever that we could get our hands on to come out of the economic
recovery. this is the lever that we missed, that we, as a nation, a tool that we left on the table that could have provided additional economic growth at a time in which the country was country was clamoring for it because congress failed to enact an immigration reform. the census data shows us we've made huge progress, but the point is that we could have done more with this tool that we left on the table and the tool is obviously still very much on the table. even the president's proposed executive actions, which are much more limited than the congress can do, had we been able to enact them would boost economic input by $200 billion, increase the size of the workforce at a time when we need to be doing that, and even get a modest increase in the wages of u.s. citizens and natives of the u.s. so we have probably the most robust documentation of the
economic impact and the potential economic benefits of immigration reform than at any point maybe in our history. yet the obstacles of doing what's right for the country and the economy remain considerable. the debate over this particular round of immigration reform has been going on for over 15 years, and it's not yet clear how long it will continue, so i can't dig in at this moment to the political problem that keeps this debate stuck, but i do want to point out another aspect of its stuckness, if that's a word, which i don't think is getting enough policy attention. one day hopefully soon, we're going to get back to the legislative debate about immigration reform. and we run the very serious risk of repeating the same basic elements of the debate we've been having for 20 to 30 years, and that includes and appropriately so what goes on at the u.s.-mexico border. but the border and who crosses the border is not who it was 10, 20, 30 years ago.
and we're having a policy debate that attempts to solve the problem with the 80s, 90s, but not the border we find ourselves with now in 2016 and beyond. there are two things that are different. the number of people crossing and the nature of migration. this is not the border of the bush administration or the clinton administration. quickly, first numbers. the number of people who cross every year is relatively low. it's near its lowest point from over the last 40 years. one indicator of that is the number of people apprehended at the border, which is low. but the second is the number of undocumented people living in the united states. that number has stabilized. that was just documented this week. the undocumented population stopped growing in the united states during this administration. that's new. fewer people are coming. which is not to say that we don't have substantial challenges at the border because we do, which gets to the second thing which is different right now and that is the nature of migration at the u.s.-mexico
border. it remains -- the challenge remains apprehending people who are trying to give us the slip, particularly from mexico, but that's a much smaller challenge proportionally than has been before, and the border patrol is now facing and managing people who come across and turn themselves in. that's also new. it's an entirely new phenomenon and it's happening from mostly central america. as an administration, we've grappled with this by doing four basic things. by sheltering, doing a better job of sheltering unaccompanied minors, by increasing resources when congress is cooperative for legal representation for immigration, by investing resources and in this case congress did cooperate, particularly in central america, to address the reasons people are migrating in the first place, and by setting up new programs in the region to
process people who qualify as refugees directly from the communities that they come from and providing places for them to go. most recently costa rica made this announcement to go to a safe place if they face danger. these are new strategies. with the exception of the $750 million we got from congress to help address the situation in central america, we are frequently executing these new strategies with funds that we find under the proverbial sofa cushions. i raise this because what you're doing here today contributes very importantly to the debate that we hope to have soon to address our immigration challenges. and if we're going to have a serious debate and capitalize on the economic opportunity that comes with immigration reform, it would be really helpful to have a debate about the border which we are actually facing right now, a debate that actually addresses the challenges that we see rather
than the ones we faced 10, 20, and 30 years ago when the rhetoric kind of locked itself in. the issues are different. the conversations should be different too. so the bottom line here is that like too many debates in this town, this one gets rooted in a lot of mythology, a lot of emotion. the economic facts even those by scholars are frequently ignored or disbelieved as are the facts about what happens on the border, but as a policymaker i don't sit in the room with myths, even not with emotions so much. we do our best to address the actual challenges that we are facing. we document them. we quantify them, and we even dare to measure the results. and when congress gets back to addressing this issue in a serious way, it's worth insisting that they do the same thing. with that, i thank you so much for taking on this conversation, for engaging in it for what i hope will be a sustained way
because the contributions of thinkers and doers are incredibly important. thank you for letting me be a part of it, and i'm happy to take a few questions. >> please do. thank you. everyone, please join me in welcoming cecilia. there's another cecilia munoz on twitter. we're going to take just a couple. >> @cecil@cecilia44. >> that's right. not the one i just used. yes. fine. yes. sorry. i'll get there. >> cecilia, you might remember me from 100 years ago. i was interested in the other issue of the border, our northern border. i know we both come from michigan. the question for me is, why are
so concerned with only the southern border when we have a basically totally open border with canada and nobody seems to be concerned about immigration coming from there? >> so it's a fair question. i will say that at least speaking for the agency for dhs, they are concerned about and work on both borders. the mass of personnel is obviously on the southern border, the u.s.-mexico border. numerically speaking, personnel is there because that's where the biggest challenges are, but that's not to say that there aren't challenges and issues at the northern border. i grew up near the border of canada in detroit. as a policy matter, we deal with both. you're right that the debate tends to focus on one, and we do have challenges that are that are reasonable to debate. >> i'm going to ask two people to make a comment and then you can respond to the themes from
those two. why don't we start there and then we'll go there? get the mike here. i apologize for pointing. >> rachel. i'm a graduate student specializing on immigration policy at gw. thank you for the talk. i'm one of those comedians that you should worry about. >> there you go. >> you talked about how the border is changing and there's some haitians coming. can you elaborate on that? because haiti is on the other end of the world, so why are they coming through the mexico border? >> this actually just hit the news yesterday. so there are folks who left haiti and went to brazil. brazil has provided visas for the haitians since the earthquake which was six years ago and for reasons that are still a little bit mysterious. some number have come all the way from there to san diego. and so what got announced yesterday by dhs was essentially
a renewed effort to apply the same rules and policies to that population that we apply to anybody else who crosses the border and to frankly send a clear message to folks as we have with central americans that the border is not open. obviously, folks have asylum claims and other humanitarian concerns, we take those seriously and address them, but we will detain and remove the folks that they find unless those humanitarian considerations apply at dhs. >> i think i agree dealing with facts, but i don't agree in dealing with emotions. i have met immigrants. i have found without deep research there is a pain that
needs to be healed. you guys, i think, need to practice humanity to find a solution to the problem. practicing humanity needs emotion. >> sure. that's a fair point. i guess i would draw the distinction in a slightly different way, but i don't think it means that we disagree with each other. when i say the debate gets emotional, part of what i mean is that we drive away from the fac facts, from what we know, what the economic evidence shows, for example, and some of this debate gets driven by fear. when i say we don't necessarily bring emotion into the policy making process, that's not to say we don't bring our values into the policy making process. that's where i think you and i are probably more aligned than not. look, we are -- and i can never be as eloquent as my boss. we're a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws. we balance those things and
we -- neither the president or i believe that those things have to be in conflict. we are who we are because of this history, and that's also our future. it's part of what makes us unique on the planet. it's part of what makes us strong. that we absolutely bring into the policy making process. that informed our work on immigration reform. it informs our work on the border, enforcement priority that is the president put forward. it certainly informed our work in creating for the first time in working with others refugee processing in the hemisphere because there's an incredibly dangerous situation in central america. so i agree with you that we have to apply values. i guess with respect to policy making as again the conversation today richly shows there's just a very big gulf between what we know, what the evidence shows, and the direction that the debate often takes. you know, this isn't the only
debate in which we struggle hard to make sure that the facts actually drive policy making. i think that's tremendously important. >> so i think i'm going to try to bring it to a close, and i just wanted to kind of earlier discuss today and talk about the work we all want to do going forward. you talked about the administrations welcoming committee. we heard this morning from the panel about the values of economic growth that bring in also some of the challenges for communities as they are dealing with the impact of immigrant populations in their communities and the near term with certain costs. we also understand that there are ways in which we can help to ensure that we achieve some of the economic benefits and barrier that is we can remove to increase and enrich our capacity to get the immigration. so, one of the things i know
that my colleague as usc and urban are interested in exploring are what are the things that help to ensure that the immigrants that come here are able to take advantage of the richness of this and are able to contribute back to our economy and to the communities they live in. particularly, by looking at that in places, i think, and sort of looking at it city by city and state by state and finding where those best practices are we are able to help make sure the potential described in the report is achieved and we can avoid some of the costs that so many people seem to feel. with that, i want to thank everybody for spending your patience this morning. i hope you found it as extraordinary as i did. thank you for being with us and your encouragement in this work. thank you to everybody who worked three years on the panel for their terrific contribution
to the discussion. thanks, everybody. [ applause ] we are back on capitol hill tomorrow when federal reserve chair janet yellin testifies before the house financial committee about monetary policy and regulation of the financial sector. this comes a week after the fed announced interest rates are remaining unchanged until later this year. watch her testimony live at 10:00 a.m. eastern tomorrow here on c-span 3. the next president making appointments to the supreme court of the united states will be president donald trump. >> with hillary clinton in the white house, the rest of the world will never forget why they have always looked up to the united states of america. >> c-span's campaign 2016 continues on the road to the
white house with the vice president debate between republican governor mike pence and democratic senator tim kaine. tuesday, october 4th, live from longwood university in farmville, virginia beginning at 7:30 p.m. eastern with a preview of the debate. at 8:30, the predebate for the audience. at 9:00 p.m., live coverage of the debate followed by viewer reaction. the 2016 vice president debate. watch live on c-span. watch live anytime on demand at c-span.org and listen live on the free c-span radio app. the house oversight committee last week held a hearing to question a former state department i.t. terriblist about hillary clinton's e-mail use. bryan pagliano said he would not testify. republicans approved a resolution recommending mr. pagliano be held in contempt of
congress. >> government reform will reconvene. this is a continuation of our september 13th hearing on the examining of the preservation of the state department federal records. scheduled to have mr. pagliano attend this hearing. due to his absence and his violation duly issued subpoena on oversight reform, we intend to adjourn it and have a business meeting for resolution and report holding mr. pagliano in contempt of congress. mr. cummings, do you have a statement? >> i have a statement. >> sure. >> let me just say this. this is certainly no surprise to anyone. mr. pagliano's attorney told us last week he wouldn't be here. they told us it would be an abuse to force him to appear for a second time.
they sent us another letter last night saying exactly the same thing. let me read from a portion of the letter so there's no question about what is going on here. i quote, we have corresponded extensively with you and the committee over the past two weeks on this subject. the facts and that changed. continuing the quote, you and the committee have been told from the beginning that mr. pagliano will continue to assert his fifth amendment rights and will decline to answer any questions put to him by your committee, end of quote. the letter explains that he already asserted the fifth, his fifth amendment rights before the benghazi select committee and should not be forced to do so a second time. the letter continues, and i quote, a subpoena issued by the committee is required by law to
serve a valid legislative purpose. there is none here. your command under the present circumstances that mr. pagliano, again, assert constitutional rights in front of video cameras six weeks before the presidential election has a naked political agenda and no legislative aim, end of quote. this full letter from mr. pagliano's attorney sent last night be entered into the official record. i have nothing else on that. >> without objections, the hearing is adjourned. committee on oversight reform will come to order pursuant to 5b and 11 ht 4. further proceedings on any question of approving a measure of matter on which a recorded vote of yeahs and nays.
declare a recess at anytime. this is a full committee business meeting to consider the resolution and report to find bryan pagliano in contempt of congress. our first and only item for consideration today is a resolution and report recommending the house of representatives find him in contempt to congress with refusal to comply to subpoena. the clerk will designate the report. >> resolution recommended the house of representatives find bryan pagliano in contempt of congress with refusal to comply to a subpoena on government reform. >> i intend to offer an amendment to the report. would be objection we will call it and recognize myself to give one statement on the ans and the
under lying report. clerk will designate the amendment. >> substitute by mr. chaffetz of utah and the house of representatives find bryan pagliano in contempt of congress. >> i recognize myself for five minutes. a statement to report on the report and the ans. today, the committee will consider a resolution to report bryan pagliano held in contempt of the house of representatives. subpoenas are not optional. mr. pagliano is a crucial fact witness in this committee's investigation of secretary of state's hillary clinton's private e-mail server to conduct government business. a release of the federal records is of deep concern to the committee and we have the jurisdiction over the federal records over national archives, we have jurisdiction in several places. over the course of the investigation, we learned some of the information about mr. pagliano's involvement in the
use of the private server. he originally worked for secretary clinton in 2008 as an i.t. specialist. as he was closing out her campaign's computer equipment, he received a call from cooper who testified in front of this committee. mr. cooper requested mr. pagliano build a server for mara schiavocampo clinton in early 2009 and she started her new job as secretary of state. they met in the basement of clinton's residence to install a new server mr. pagliano built. he continued to maintain the server while secretary clinton was at the state department. then he joined secretary clinton as the appointee in the resource management. by law, schedule c appointees are required to appoint to a presidential appointee.
making mr. pagliano's employment arrangement unusual at best. other employees in his bureau later questioned his ability to support a private clients e-mail server given his capacity as a full-time government employee. he left the state department in february 2013, the same month as secretary clinton. he worked at the state department almost four years, the agency has been able to find a handful of e-mails. we have questions about this. mr. pagliano's e-mails are federal records just like secretary clinton's and subject to production and response to information act request. the committee has jurisdiction of both the federal records act and foya. we have oversight investigative and legislative work in this area. the committee subpoenaed mr. pagliano to appear september 13, 2016. he did not show up to that hearing. i explained